My understanding is that there was no evidence against the main suspect, apart from the fact that he turned up at the inquest and gave statements that were seemingly inconsistent with other witnesses. For instance, he claimed to at home at a time when four witnesses said they saw him near to murder scene.

However, I doubt that he was the killer; I mean, why would he voluntarily come forward and give evidence at the inquest if he was involved? Most likely a publicity seeker. What is interesting is that this crime took place in West Yorkshire, where Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, was active during the 1970s. No doubt a coincidence, however it's worth noting that one of his victims, who survived, was a 14 year old girl, who he attacked down a quiet country lane. And although he was only 19 in 1965 he had a criminal conviction that year for breaking into cars. By 1969 he was caught in possession of a hammer by the police and subsequently admitted that he fully intended to kill that night.

My understanding is that there was no evidence against the main suspect, apart from the fact that he turned up at the inquest and gave statements that were seemingly inconsistent with other witnesses. For instance, he claimed to at home at a time when four witnesses said they saw him near to murder scene.

However, I doubt that he was the killer; I mean, why would he voluntarily come forward and give evidence at the inquest if he was involved? Most likely a publicity seeker. What is interesting is that this crime took place in West Yorkshire, where Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, was active during the 1970s. No doubt a coincidence, however it's worth noting that one of his victims, who survived, was a 14 year old girl, who he attacked down a quiet country lane. And although he was only 19 in 1965 he had a criminal conviction that year for breaking into cars. By 1969 he was caught in possession of a hammer by the police and subsequently admitted that he fully intended to kill that night.

Hi John,

I had the same thoughts about Peter Sutcliffe except, like you, I thought it was a bit early for him. The 'official' line is that he started hitting women over the head with rocks in a sock around 1969. He then progressed to using a hammer. He may have thought that carrying a hammer was less risky than being caught carrying a knife as a hammer could be claimed to be necessary for one's occupation.

I had the same thoughts about Peter Sutcliffe except, like you, I thought it was a bit early for him. The 'official' line is that he started hitting women over the head with rocks in a sock around 1969. He then progressed to using a hammer. He may have thought that carrying a hammer was less risky than being caught carrying a knife as a hammer could be claimed to be necessary for one's occupation.

Hi Limehouse,

I've just been rereading Michael Bilton's book. What is interesting is that Sutcliffe's criminal career started in 1963 when he received a minor traffic conviction. However, by 1965 he had already progressed to more serious crimes- breaking into vehicles with another youth.

However, is there any evidence that he had started committing violent crimes, even murder, as early as the mid 1960s? Well, in 1966 bookmaker Fred Craven was murdered in his office after he clearly interrupted a robbery. What's particularly interesting about this unsolved crime is that the victim suffered a blow to the head from behind, clearly reminiscent of Sutcliffe's MO.

Sutcliffe also knew the family- he lived less than 100 yards away -and the victim's youngest daughter subsequently revealed that he had been constantly pestering her to go out with him.

Incredibly, Sutcliffe's brother Michael was questioned over the murder, because he wore a "Donovan"-style cap, as did one of the suspects who had been seen in the vicinity of the shop; but he had an alibi and was quickly ruled out. However, what the police didn't know is that Peter Sutcliffe also possessed such a cap, as was confirmed by one of his friends, Keith Sugden. The victim's son has also said that he believes Sutcliffe was responsible, and Detective O'Boyle, who interviewed Sutcliffe over the Ripper murders, pressed for him to be investigated, particularly as local detectives were convinced the victim knew his killer, only to be told by his boss, Jim Hobson, "He only kills women."

A year later, 1967, a taxi driver was violently assaulted with a hammer by a passenger who had been travelling in his cab. Evidence clearly showed that a ball-pein hammer had been used, Sutcliffe's trademark, and in 1981, following Sutcliffe's arrest, the victim picked out his mugshot- the one he had taken following his 1969 arrest.

Moreover, it does seem likely that Sutcliffe has committed a number of violent crimes that he hasn't disclosed- Chief Constable Hellawell, for instances, strongly suspected that he had committed a large number of additional offences during the 1980s and 90s - at least 18, based upon MO, eyewitness statements and descriptions by surviving victims (Bilton, 2003)

Of course, this murder involved the use of a knife, rather than a hammer or rocks in a sock, but serial killer's clearly evolve their MO's over time, and as Sutcliffe would have been only 18 in 1965, I think this could just possibly be the first murder of an inexperienced, fledgling serial killer.

Of course, my earlier comment "large number of offences in the 80s and 90s" was wrong, as Sutcliffe was arrested in 1981! What I should have wrote is that Sutcliffe was interviewed by Halliwell during those decades with the intention of clearing up other unsolved crimes that bore his MO- as noted, the Chief Constable believed that he could have been responsible for at least 18 other offences, ten of which had been identified by the Byford review team as almost certainly committed by Sutcliffe. However, with the exception of two assaults, including the one on the 14 year old schoolgirl, he was largely uncooperative; or, as Bilton puts it: "...they were reduced to playing a cat-and- mouse game as Sutcliffe revelled in the attention he received from a high- ranking police officer, Keith Halliwell." (Bilton, 2003)